Mandatory childhood vaccination could cause “irreparable damage,” says expert panel

Before considering implementing mandatory vaccination to remedy the falling rates of vaccine uptake and confidence in vaccine safety it may be prudent to consider all the practical issues associated with vaccines which are perhaps, contributing to the overall reticence of the public to embrace vaccination.

The role of the MHRA is used time and time again to reassure a concerned public as to vaccine safety. The public need to be reassured that the highest possible standards are employed in both collating data and responding to ADR’s. Establishing that is pivotal to the overall levels of vaccine uptake.

The public have the rightful expectation that the MHRA will respond immediately and effectively to any safety issues flagged up. Collating the information alone doesn’t satisfy the public’s expectations. With daily coverage of falling vaccine rates and loss of vaccine confidence it is vital that the standard of post marketing surveillance and resultant action in respect of unsafe products is swift and consistent.

Apparent inconsistencies in what constitutes a problematic, unsafe product with subsequent removal from the market will not reassure the public and instil confidence.

Two relatively recent FOIA disclosures appear to display very different standards between the criteria employed in medicines and vaccines triggering their removal from the market.

Under FOIA, the MHRA confirmed 1076 suspected ADR reports in the under 5’s between 1st January 2005 and 31st December 2015, following administration of the MMR vaccine. (1)

Reports are categorised as to their seriousness under criteria from the “working group of the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) and are defined as 6 possible categories which are documented on the Yellow Card”

The criteria are: “(1) patient died due to reaction (2) life threatening (3) resulted in hospitalisation or prolonged inpatient hospitalisation (4) congenital abnormality and (5) involved persistent or significant disability or incapacity or (6) if the reaction was deemed medically significant.” (1)

Breakdown of the “serious” ADR’s (626) from the 1076 are……….

Patient Died 8
Hospitalised Due To Reaction 143
Life Threatening 27
Disability/Incapacity 67
Congenital Abnormality 0
Other Medically Significant 381

However, a 2017 FOIA (17/460) from the MHRA confirmed that since it came into being in 2003, only 12 medicinal products and no vaccines have been removed from the UK market due to “safety concerns”.(2)

Three of the 12 products listed were removed because of “increased risk of cardiovascular side effects”, two for “liver toxicity”, one for MI/stroke, one for serious skin reactions, one for psychiatric reactions, one for toxicity in overdose, one for risk of abuse/addiction, one for PML and one for “increased incidence of non-fatal serious adverse events and lack of efficacy”.

Risks of abuse and or addiction to any medicine are themselves a matter of concern and a very good reason for removing it from the market but it is understandable that an uneasy public might question why 8 deaths and 67 cases of disability following the administration of the MMR vaccine in under 5’s did not result in it too, being removed from the market.

How can the public be expected to have confidence in a system which appears inconsistent in its approach to what constitutes an actionable safety risk?

Is there a different standard employed by the MHRA with regard to product safety between other medicinal products and vaccines?

Before employing draconian measures of enforced vaccination it may be worth addressing how much of an impact a lack of confidence in the post marketing surveillance is contributing to the overall problem. It seems very unfair to foist the entire burden of the perceived remedy to the problem on to the children and their families if one of the causes of the problem lies elsewhere and a different remedy is called for.

(1) https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/322242/response/796748/attach/htm...
(2) https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/432947/response/1069707/attach/ht...

Selwyn and Melanie D'Costa make a very important point. Vaccine authorities would save more lives and misery if they were more selective about the vaccines they promote and mandate.

Measles vaccine is a true lifesaver. Influenza vaccines, on the other hand, are of very uncertain benefit, notwithstanding the host of observational studies announcing this or that percentage of "vaccine effectiveness." Nearly 20 years ago Kenneth McIntosh wrote an editorial calling for multi-center, multi-season, randomized, controlled trials before recommending routine annual influenza vaccination for children. He worried that such a practice would actually do more harm than good. (NEJM 2000;342:275) His advice was ignored, and today we know that influenza vaccines sometime increase the risk of influenza and non-influenza virus infections; they have also caused narcolepsy, febrile seizures, and oculorespiratory syndrome. They provide short-term immunity and prevent some illnesses from seasonal influenza, but in so doing they prevent the development of broad and lasting immunity against influenza viruses, in individuals and in the population as a whole. The frequently quoted observational studies exaggerate the benefits of influenza vaccines and understate the adverse effects because of the "healthy user effect."

In the US the morbidity and mortality from influenza have certainly not declined after years of promoting influenza vaccines for the entire population. Instead of admitting this fact, and the possibility that the vaccines have done more harm than good, US vaccine authorities are now publicizing the hopes for a universal influenza vaccine. Meanwhile, they tell us that, "although flu shots are not perfect, you should get them every year."...…….Measles vaccine YES....influenza vaccine NO.

Allan Cunningham, as usual, raises some formidable points [1]. What is apparently at stake is defence against measles but what is really at stake when we talk about mandates or compulsion is total public compliance with as many products as a government bureaucracy cares to nominate. As I mentioned in an earlier response to him the cost of vaccinating a single child according to the schedule has risen by probably more than 100 times since the beginning of the millennium [2]. Already, when there are only multivac products available for many diseases, there is a major diminution of public choice, but if the public have to have everything potentially an industry produces (as is increasingly the case already in the United States and is perhaps proposed by the European Commission [3]) then we have entered the realms of extreme tyranny and thoughtlessness. The very fact that public debate about it is being widely stamped on is itself a matter for deep concern and mistrust. In the United Kingdom we have a pitiful record of recognising vaccine harm (nowhere in the world is it excellent) and opprobrium is perpetually heaped on anyone who mentions it.

While the prevention of disease may in itself be a good thing, it cannot be a pretext for removing the most basic human rights, or ignoring human dignity. We seem to have forgotten everything we ever learned in the 74 years since the Second World War [4]. I see no evidence as I look around that the governments of the world have really become so benign and wise that we can just defer to them in this way. Matt Hancock and Simon Stevens, if they are going to talk about compulsion, need to be much clearer about their intentions.

[1] Allan S Cunningham, 'Too much safety: vaccine mandates, hesitancy, and AFM' 14 October 2019, https://www.bmj.com/content/367/bmj.l5995/rr-1

[2] John Stone, 'Re: The Boiling Frog Principle: patient safety and vaccines', 20 September 2019, https://www.bmj.com/content/366/bmj.l5576/rr-4

[3] European Commission, 'ROADMAP FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS BY THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION BASED ON THE COMMISSION COMMUNICATION AND THE COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION ON STRENGTHENING COOPERATION AGAINST VACCINE PREVENTABLE DISEASES', https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/vaccination/docs/2019-202...

[4] Wendy E Stephen, 'Re: Mandatory childhood vaccination could cause “irreparable damage,” says expert panel', 14 October 2019, https://www.bmj.com/content/367/bmj.l5995/rr-0

“Making it mandatory for children to be vaccinated could result in “irreparable damage” by turning the decision whether to vaccinate into a rights issue, a panel of experts has argued”.

Mandatory vaccination might well turn the decision whether or not to vaccinate into a rights issue with the obvious loss of choice but since there is no such thing as a risk free vaccine and the possibility exists for some children to become injured because of it, the authorities would have to give consideration to all human rights and question whether or not in enforcing vaccination, they risk violating any of the rights bestowed on children.

A number of rights safeguard children, preserve their rights to mental, physical and social health, and their ability to participate in a family life.

Dr David Elliman, was reported in the Family Law Week as having said there is no such thing as a vaccination which is 100% risk free.

“Dr Elliman acknowledged that no vaccination is 100% risk free, but that vaccination has greatly reduced the burden of infectious disease”. (1)

And he is not alone in that, with numerous other bodies stating the same, ranging from The Oxford Vaccine group (2) , the WHO (3), The British Society of Immunology (4) the College of Physicians of Philadelphia (5) and more recently in June 2019, Baroness Barran (6)

Realistically, despite every effort to ensure vaccine safety, some children will suffer lasting injuries because of it. Consideration would need to be given to whether or not compulsory vaccination, in the event that something goes wrong, would violate the rights bestowed on children via various conventions etc, not to be harmed.

Article 2 of the Human Rights Act ensures that no one can end a life but it also requires states parties to “safeguard life”.

It provides that "Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law" and includes…………….
“A duty to protect people against the risk of harm from the activities of public authorities” (7)

Since there is no such thing as an entirely risk free vaccine, is it possible that enforced vaccination, if it resulted in a lasting injury, would be a violation of Article 2?

Article 8 provides everyone with a right to a “private and family life,” and ensures
“no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right”. (8)

Mr Alfred Morris MP, summed it up precisely when he said “all of us must agree that, by definition of the word “family”, if one member of the family is disabled the family as a whole is disabled ,“ something which, was recognised in the Department of Health, Green Book, Chapter 10 on the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme up until 2016.

Recognising the involvement of the family as a whole, it was stated that an award was intended to “ease the present and future burdens of the vaccine damaged person and their family” (9)

Mandatory vaccination would surely need to include consideration of Article 8 and the impact on family life for both the disabled individual and the family in cases of vaccine induced injury.

Could mandatory vaccinations, in the event of a vaccine injury, be perceived as “an interference of a public authority” re the right to a family life?

Article 24 of The United Nations Convention on the rights of the Child, ensures children have the “best possible health” defined in the 1946 Constitution of the World Health Organisation (WHO), as “a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity”. (10)

Proposals to implement mandatory vaccination would need to include consideration of Article 24 in respect of the children whose health, whether mentally, physically, or socially may be negatively affected by a vaccine.

Article 36 protects the child from “any activity that takes advantage of them or could harm their welfare and development” which would surely include any vaccine induced harm which impacts on their well being and their development?

Consideration of any anticipated “irreparable damage” from the implementation of mandatory vaccination needs to include consideration of any potential violations of children’s human rights.

(1) https://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed191684

(2) http://vk.ovg.ox.ac.uk/vk/faqs-about-vaccines

(3) https://vaccine-safety-training.org/overview-and-outcomes-3.html

(4) Vaccines The British Society for Immunology

https://www.immunology.org › sites › default › files › vaccines-policy-brie..

(5) https://www.historyofvaccines.org/index.php/content/articles/vaccine-inj... compensation-programs

(6) https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2019-06-18/debates/39F33102-C79A-4FC...

(7) https://justice.org.uk/article-2/

(8) http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part/I/chapter/7

(9) Department of Health Green Book Chapter 10 June 2014

(10) Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
The Right to Health
Fact sheet 31